No polling place is exactly the same, the racial composition of the queues at polling places reflect the homogeneity of the surround neighborhood, and wait times often do differ drastically from one polling place to another polling place. That isn’t necessarily a constitutional violation. That isn’t often a constitutional violation. In fact, even though election cases have a higher chance than other cases of review by SCOTUS, it rarely is a constitutional violation. As I actually said, your position is meritless.

Actually, I didn’t say this. I do not think these cases are analogous to university cases (i.e., Grutter/Gratz) insofar as “individual consideration” — e.g., looking to soft factors — is irrelevant in the K-12 context. No one is examining the resumes of kindergarteners to determine if they add intellectual and viewpoint diversity to the community the university is trying to create, because educational experts are smart enough to know kindergarteners generally don’t have resumes and they aren’t mature enough to add individualistic value. The whole point is to create an environment that fosters the development of the individuality that will be so prized when these kids apply to college. Your attempt to run the cases together is likely facetious. Your other points are as facetious and purely rhetorical.

Lets be fair about the case – it was not race alone, it was race plus a desire for integrated schools. In Topeka, the children were assigned by race plus a desire for segregated schools, where the facilties were stipulated to be more-or-less equal. Brown did not speak to the mechanism of racial classification, rather it ruled on the result of it, which was the segregated schools.

When there is a compelling government purpose that touches on race, and the legitimacy of that purpose is subjected to strict scrutiny, the government can classify people by race. Should the FDA be allowed to approve BiDil for black people only, where it is proven to dramatically effective in saving lives? Absolutely. Achieving race-conscious purposes through race-neutral means is an exercise in hand-waving.

I do not know if the school plans are a good idea (it doesn’t seem necessary) – but they should be evaluated under strict scrutiny to determine if the Equal Protection clause has been violated, rather than dismessed out of hand. If it turned out that the Seattle plan created a renaissance of racial harmony and enabled the children of all races to strive together into a New Tommorow, I would say the plan would not violate Equal Protection the same way segregated schools do.

But since the Seattle schools are inherently unequal in educational benefits (a point which has been proven sufficiently throughout the course of this case), students who are not ‘assigned’ to their first-choice school are effectively not ‘admitted’. It is akin to a student who applies to two universities, and is not admitted to the more prestigious one. There must be a reason that student was not admitted; if it was race alone, as it is in this case, then it is a Equal Protection Clause violation.

Now, as you said, every student in Seattle does not have the right to attend their first-choice school, just as every high school senior does not have the right to choose their university. But when those students are denied their choice, there must be a reason. The Equal Protection Clause mandates that race alone cannot be the reason.

I don’t think there are quotas here (nor do your briefs indicate that you or your counsel understand what quotas are).

This is absolutely a quota. Justice O’Connor defined a quota in this sense as “a fixed number or percentage that must be attained.” The racial tiebreaker looks to set a percentage at each of the Seattle schools.

No one is denied access to a school in your district because of skin color. This case is about assignments within the system, not admission to the system. Likewise, a case about your proper polling place is not a case about whether or not you have the right to vote.

As you would say. nice try. The polling places in your example are the same in terms of the benefits they offer. Seattle’s high schools are not. A student who is not assigned to their first-choice school based on race cannot access the benefits of that school because of their race. It is as if your polling place has a three-hour wait, but a neighboring one with no wait does not let you vote because you are black. That is a much more accurate description of this case.

You mean assignment, not admittance. According to your school system, everyone has a right to admittance to a school. No one has a right to choose to which school they are assigned. In other words, there is no dessert. Everyone gets placed “against their will”.

Kennedy’s argument makes no sense. There are no people with a separate skin — some of the kids denied their assignment of choice are black and some are white. Some who get their assignment of choice are white and some are black. Some of the desired schools are majority white and some are majority black.

But I notice you say “even Justice Kennedy,” as if he’s some sort of guaranteed liberal vote. Given that Kennedy was a Reagan appointee, I think that reveals a bit more about you than you realize. Would you have preferred Robert Bork?

I’m glad you recognize that the school district is moving our children around like chess pieces to promote racial integration.

Nice try, but you’re missing the point. I don’t think there are quotas here (nor do your briefs indicate that you or your counsel understand what quotas are). The point is that your local school board will still have the power to move your kids around “like chess pieces” and treat them “like robots” whether you win the lawsuit or not. The only thing your lawsuit accomplishes is stopping racial integration. Given that you have admitted that your primary motivation for initiating this lawsuit was emotion… what emotion do you have that is offended by racial integration?

We attended several board meetings and offered public testimony both before and after the assignments. We contacted board members repeatedly to help change policy. We also tried mediation.

Nice try, but this is sophistry. Attending board meetings is not the same as being on the board. Contacting board members is not the same as being on the board. Trying mediation is not the same as being on the board. I don’t think you were involved in the local school board or local school board elections until after you decided to sue. You probably attended board meetings as part of a legal strategy on advice of counsel who advised you to “exhaust all the remedies”.

The school board election next November, I plan to help vote off certain members and plan to donate $$ to people running against them. I’m even putting up yard signs. We already have two school board members who are suing the board. I’m not running for a position.

Your participation in the local school board elections next November says nothing about your participation prior to the filing of the lawsuit. At no point — prior to filing the lawsuit — did you fund opponents of the current board members, run for office, or get on the board. And the fact that you think filing lawsuits is pro-democratic activity shows how badly you misunderstand the legacy of Ronald Reagan. And, for the record, I voted for Ronald Reagan twice.

Like I said before, the briefs do not have EVERY detail about the case in them.

You are assuming I have not read anything but the briefs. I do not know why. My point was that if it’s not in the record, it can’t be properly relied on by the judges. That includes your emotions that racial integration is a moral wrong.

That was 1954 and now it’s almost 2007.

I guess there is an expiration date on stare decisis.

No child should be denied access to a school because of their skin color.

No one is denied access to a school in your district because of skin color. This case is about assignments within the system, not admission to the system. Likewise, a case about your proper polling place is not a case about whether or not you have the right to vote. Your inability to make that distiction is what confirms, for me, at least, that you sued blinded by emotions and selfish motives.

As Ronald Reagan used to say “There you go again”. You are assuming that we parents sued blindly. We attended several board meetings and offered public testimony both before and after the assignments. We contacted board members repeatedly to help change policy. We also tried mediation. I don’t remember seeing you there. The school board election next November, I plan to help vote off certain members and plan to donate $$ to people running against them. I’m even putting up yard signs. We already have two school board members who are suing the board. I’m not running for a position. Besides, my district member isn’t up for re-election.

Regarding school admittance, even Justice Kennedy said in the argument “it’s like saying everybody can have a meal but only people with separate skin can get dessert”. I’d say that that was a fair analogy of the assignment system.

I agree with Brown vs. The Board of Education. That was 1954 and now it’s almost 2007. No child should be denied access to a school because of their skin color. We are not fighting against integration or diversity. We are fighting against discrimination.

I’m glad you recognize that the school district is moving our children around like chess pieces to promote racial integration. To meet their white and non-white racial balancing quotas, they have to deny some children access to certain schools based on their skin color. Isn’t that what Brown vs. The Board is all about? Our schools in Seattle are neither separate or equal. We have diversity without the use of the racial tiebreaker. I will agree that school funding and equity is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Like I said before, the briefs do not have EVERY detail about the case in them. The depositions do have several of the details that I mentioned, and they are part of the record.

I do believe that the justice system is an outlet here for us to address wrongs, both emotional and physical and sometimes financial.

I’m going to be very non-politically correct and wish you a Merry Christmas! I’m too busy now to chat anymore. I’ll check the blog next week.

Kathleen Brose

Actually, they did just that! They didn’t have sufficient data until the discovery stage: call it a fishing expedition. Furthermore, an easy way to get access to information on how a local school board is making decisions is to join the local school board and participate in it. Why are we congratulating these parents for short-circuiting democracy by dashing to the courthouse? If these parents had joined the school board or tried to run for election to the school board on a platform of changing the school board’s policy, that would be one thing. This lawsuit is another.

The fact of the matter is that some students were denied admittance based on their race.

Actually, that’s false. No one was denied admittance for any reason. Some students were denied assignment to a school of their choice.

If it turned out that the children were denied for other reasons, then the lawsuit would have been thrown out.

That’s neither here nor there. Cases of this type were denied cert for years at the Supreme Court (in other words, appeals of this kind have been routinely thrown out for years) — does that mean the Supreme Court necessarily committed a wrong by hearing this case once two new members were installed? It’s also the case that the district court — the same one that permitted the discovery and reviewed the facts — found against the parents. So, by your logic, the case is meritless.

I was there, and you weren’t.

Yes, and I was alive before 1954, and you weren’t. That’s how I know your case is nothing like Brown.

Our children are not robots that you can move around like chess pieces and expect success.

Except the ample discretion of local school boards is not in question. School boards will always be able to move your children like chess pieces. School boards will always be able to treat your children like robots. Even if you win, your local school board can still treat your kids like robots and move them around like chess pieces so long as it picks the right rationale. For example, eradicating socioeconomic disparity. What is at stake in this case is whether school boards can treat your children like robots and move them around like chess pieces to promote racial integration.

[The briefs] do not contain every single detail as to why parents chose a particular school for their child. [The briefs] do not contain the details of the academic,emotional and social needs of the kids involved. [The briefs] do not contain all the details of the impact that school assignments have on a particular family’s dynamics. [The briefs] do not contain the human emotion of this case, because you can’t put that information on paper.

Legal briefs usually have a facts section. And emotionally-laden facts are often discovered and admitted at trial, so they’re a part of the record. Whatever isn’t in the record or the arguments shouldn’t be considered in the adjudication of the case. If your problem with the assignment plan is emotional rather than legal, then perhaps you should have found an emotional outlet other than the legal system.

An interested student could easily do a little research and figure out how the assignment policy worked. Once someone figured out what the tiebreakers were, it would be clear that race had something to do with the denials. That doesn’t seem outside the skill set of an interested 9th-grader.

All the kids would know is that some kids — of varying skin color — didn’t get their school of choice. It doesn’t change the fact that the parents stigmatized their children by insisting, without verifiable information, that the only reason their kids were denied admittance was race and launching a lawsuit that exacerbated racial divisions in the area.

An organization of parents wouldn’t necessarily be able to obtain such information, which is why the discovery process exists. If it turned out that the children were denied for other reasons, then the lawsuit would have been thrown out. I’m sure that Parents did not just due blindly.

The fact of the matter is that some students were denied admittance based on their race. It walked like a duck and talked like a duck, and it seems that the Court will rule that it is a duck. Based on the facts of the case and the words of Ms. Brose, it also seems that the racial assignment patterns were fairly obvious in some neighborhoods. Because of the seriousness of racial discrimination, Parents had to file the suit as soon as possible to try and stop the use of the assignment plan.

I’m sure you will poke holes in whatever I have to say. We will have to agree to disagree. I do believe in and support public schools, and I wish for a great education for every child. Thanks for writing.

-Kathleen Brose

I’m 72. I have three wonderful grandchildren. Were you alive in 1954?

They knew the school district used a racial tiebreaker.

Since whether it is even a “racial tiebreaker” is in dispute, I don’t see how they “knew” that. And your statement that the kids knew it themselves contradicts your previous statement that the parents figured it out by doing the math. It also contradicts your statement that no one knew how the “racial tiebreaker” worked until the case had been filed and there had been sufficient discovery.

when they talked about their high school assignments among themselves.

Sorry to say I do not believe you. Given what you have admitted about the utter neutrality of the content of the letters and given that, according to you, both white and non-white kids were not given their assignment of choice, it doesn’t seem like homeroom conversations amongst kids who didn’t receive their assignment of choice would result in the awareness of some overall racial pattern. The numbers submitted to the Court include that the “racial tiebreaker” — amongst the many other tiebreakers used — only accounted for 2-3% of the denials. I don’t understand how the equivalent of water cooler gossip between teens could sort out the 97% of denials based on other factors from the 3% denials “based on race”. All the kids would know is that some kids — of varying skin color — didn’t get their school of choice. It doesn’t change the fact that the parents stigmatized their children by insisting, without verifiable information, that the only reason their kids were denied admittance was race and launching a lawsuit that exacerbated racial divisions in the area.

Just curious. How old are you and do you have children?

-Kathleen Brose

This is what I suspected. The Board sent each student a letter that identified their assigned school and that letter did not mention race. The parents whose children were denied their school of choice decided, in the absence of verifiable information, that their kids had been denied their school of choice because of race and filed a lawsuit alleging their kids had been denied their school of choice because of race. That is, the only people who racially stigmatized these children … were their parents.

And, in other cases, non-white kids did not get in for racial reasons. In the oral argument, the ratio was something like 2:1, I’d think this should factor in that blacks are not 50% of the community, so yes, more whites would be involved.

The program is in place for a reason. It uses various other criteria too. Thus, one kid might not get in because of their address, which often is not “voluntary” in various respects.

And, there is a reason for the set-up. Excessive race separation causes problems. Other means were tried to achieve diversity and integration. The school district’s brief (available on the Supreme Court’s website) is telling on this pt. I’d add that I’m told by someone from the area with a connection to the schools (wife a teacher) that inequal funding also is a factor.

Finally, the divisions here are not purely private. Historically, racial covenants and other state supported means split the races. So, some means, no means cost-free, are proposed to change matters.

-Kathleen Brose